I've often had fantasies of doing just this, especially if I've already let a car in and the next car in the merging lane decides that's a sign of weakness and not kindness. However I've always had enough (self preservation|sense|cowardice, your choice) to avoid the car. Thumbs up on calling his bluff! Hope it works out for you.
My totally biased driver education instructor position is this: you did what you could by moving to the left and giving room since there was a car to the left you couldn't change lanes. The merging driver does not have right of way and must yield properly. That means they need to slow and merge behind the vehicle already on the road being entered if they didn't approach correctly to reach the open space in front. There was no negligence on part of the OP, regardless of perceived intent to get a new bumper cover. I teach merging. Every semester to 40 teens. And we go to the interstate to practice. I've probably been involved with more merges more times than anyone on this board in the ten years I've been teaching. The driver ON the interstate should never use the brakes in that situation unless they want to be driven into from behind. It is incumbent on the merging driver to merge safely and correctly. If the merging driver in this video wanted to fill the space in front of the OP they should have sped up to get into it then. They did not. And they appear to not have looked into their blind spot or didn't care to. Generally, the number one mistake people make when merging is not using the ACCELERATION lane as it name implies. To accelerate! And more crashes occur during merging than changing lanes because of this.
In reply to vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) :
I agree with the way you say it should work, but 2 things to point out.
The intent for the new bumper is not perceived, he stated he wanted one. He would not have been hit from behind as he's pointed out (and shown) there was plenty of room. I'm curious if you played the video? It's obvious that a light tap on the brake, with a blow of the horn, would have solved it.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) :
I agree with the way you say it should work, but 2 things to point out.
The intent for the new bumper is not perceived, he stated he wanted one. He would not have been hit from behind as he's pointed out (and shown) there was plenty of room. I'm curious if you played the video? It's obvious that a light tap on the brake, with a blow of the horn, would have solved it.
I did play the video. And I stand by my assertion. The merging driver was wrong regardless. Would I have done the same? Probably not. And I teach my students to avoid contact at all costs. Don't hit anything, and don't let anything hit you is my mantra. But the merging driver is responsible for this collision.
vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) said:Steve_Jones said:In reply to vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) :
I agree with the way you say it should work, but 2 things to point out.
The intent for the new bumper is not perceived, he stated he wanted one. He would not have been hit from behind as he's pointed out (and shown) there was plenty of room. I'm curious if you played the video? It's obvious that a light tap on the brake, with a blow of the horn, would have solved it.
I did play the video. And I stand by my assertion. The merging driver was wrong regardless. Would I have done the same? Probably not. And I teach my students to avoid contact at all costs. Don't hit anything, and don't let anything hit you is my mantra. But the merging driver is responsible for this collision.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Yes. Thank you. Last clear chance is a thing, and it's real. OP had it here and failed miserably. Both drivers have liability. Really no valid argument otherwise.
In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
Tort law is for civil. And if this was civil, that might actually apply. Vehicle laws are not civil.
lnlogauge said:In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
Tort law is for civil. And if this was civil, that might actually apply. Vehicle laws are not civil.
No but financial liability is certainly civil law. All the time people are found criminally innocent but financially liable.
In reply to lnlogauge :
Whether or not you get a moving violation would not be civil law. But deciding who pays for damage done to a vehicle is absolutely a civil action.
lnlogauge said:In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :
Tort law is for civil. And if this was civil, that might actually apply. Vehicle laws are not civil.
At the risk of repeating myself, two entirely different things. The other driver violated a motor vehicle statute. You violated a tort law, pretty badly. If the other driver were to claim injury, you don't think the motor vehicle statute is going to be the only factor, do you?
I sure hope we get a follow up on this. I agree that OP could
have avoided it, but so could the mouth breather in the other car. The way I understand it, the mouth breather is the one legally required to avoid the OP.
I just don't put myself in losing situations, if I can help it. I'm more than a little shocked at how cavalier you are about this. So you knowingly let this collision happen so you could get a new bumper cover? That's seriously F'ed up. As others have pointed out, you have no idea what the state of mind of the other driver was. He easily could've hopped out of his car with a baseball bat or worse and caused serious injury to you. What if the collision had caused injury to either you or him? What if either of you had family members in your cars and they got injured? You're ok with that?
For what exactly? So you could prove a point and maybe get some damage to your car fixed for free or at a highly discounted price.
I had an accident many years ago, a lady was backing her Taurus out of a driveway. She had not yet reached the end of her driveway but it seemed like she wasn't slowing enough. (I was driving in a straight line on the street that her driveway lead to.) I honked my horn, and was almost past her when she collided with the rear 1/4 of my E28 535i. (By the time she struck me, she was well out of my forward view and while I suppose I might have been able to see what was going on in my sideview mirror- at that point, do you swerve into the oncoming lane & or floor it to try to increase the gap? ANYWAY, she was ticked for failure to yield or whatever. I assumed this was going to be a straightforward insurance claim. Nope, her insurer claimed that because I honked that meant that I was aware that she was not stopping and that I should have taken evasive action. Her insurer offered various blame splitting options with my insurance- I think their first offer was 80 her/20me and then 95/5. It ended up going to arbitration. I ultimately prevailed, but it was a lot of drama and stress for a completely straightforward right-of-way case. (Also, she claimed I was speeding. I was less than 5 over at the time. I'm like "uh, if you didn't see my car, how exactly were you able to judge how fast I was traveling?")
Point being- who was ticketed had a limited impact on how the insurance companies assigned fault.
As an amusing postscript, I told my story to a neighbor and she said "was that the second driveway West of street X?" "Yes" "Oh, she almost backed into me too!"
I would not have lost a bumper because my dick is not an extension of my car. I am in traffic a lot and in situations where I can claim my right of way many times a day. But I prefer not to get into accidents to prove my manhood.
There was so much wrong in that video, on both sides. Had I not heard any of your comments and just watched the video, I would have said that the other driver caused the situation that lead up to the collision, but you ultimately failed to avoid the collision. Right of way does not give you the right to collide with another vehicle. If you are in a position where a reasonable person should have been able to avoid the collision and failed to take action, you are ultimately responsible for the collision. While the other guy's driving was horrible- he had plenty of room behind you, or could have accelerated a bit- you should have just given him the benefit of the doubt that he though he was clear and didn't see you in his blind spot. After what you wrote- it appears that you not only failed to avoid the collision, but welcomed it! Sure, it ended up as a fender bender and a minor insurance claim. Hope your new bumper was worth it. But I've seen lots of these where it goes bad. Someone over corrects and leaves the pavement.
To illustrate that right of way is not what you think it is- picture a four way stop. The car to the right of you skips your turn. Would you t bone him to teach him a lesson and get a new bumper? Because that's pretty much what you did, just at a different angle.
I was almost killed in a accident with a semi truck. Rural divided highway, traveling opposite directions. Double yellow line, no cross streets, no intersections. We were on a levee, so the shoulder dropped off sharply. He needed to drive down the levee with a load of gravel, so he turned left in front of me. I had nowhere to go. Full braking, just a matter of where I was going to hit. I chose the wheel, which I believe saved my life. Driver said he didn't see me. He almost missed his turn, braked hard, and cut across my lane. I couldn't imagine a scenario where it was anything but his fault. Didn't expect the CHP officer that did the investigation to use the laws of physics from some other universe. Said that I failed to yield. I had maybe 60 feet to stop from 65mph. I must have missed the cable with my tail hook. I explained to my insurance how physics work in our universe, and they agreed with me. The point being- even though that truck had no business on my side of the highway, if I had been able to yield I would have been required to do so.
Well... the OP has made it pretty clear he's certain how fault will be decided in this case.
OP, can you promise to update us when this is decided?
Who wants to give what odds on the outcome?
In reply to Beer Baron :
We will never know because no matter what he will say it was 100% in his favor. He can't admit there's a chance he's wrong here, he won't admit it later.
I love the dog piling on the OP. What happened to the forum that would be open minded to hearing someone out and considering their opinion and not passing judgement? While I would not have personally done this I also understand when enough is enough. People have limits. Being a douche to others because you know they will back down should never be accepted but yet here we are. It only gets worse from here.
In reply to bobzilla :
No one is dog piling on him. When people in the insurance business say "be prepared for it to not go your way" and he wants to say they're wrong, people get defensive. If I was him, I'd want this thread and the YouTube video deleted.
bobzilla said:I love the dog piling on the OP. What happened to the forum that would be open minded to hearing someone out and considering their opinion and not passing judgement? While I would not have personally done this I also understand when enough is enough. People have limits. Being a douche to others because you know they will back down should never be accepted but yet here we are. It only gets worse from here.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
bobzilla said:I love the dog piling on the OP. What happened to the forum that would be open minded to hearing someone out and considering their opinion and not passing judgement? While I would not have personally done this I also understand when enough is enough. People have limits. Being a douche to others because you know they will back down should never be accepted but yet here we are. It only gets worse from here.
Maybe this is a weird place to draw the line, but I'm not super offended by his actions in the video. What does it for me is then going online and bragging about winning an shiny happy person contest and also admitting to what could be argued is insurance fraud. Then topping it off with a clear misunderstanding of the applicable laws.
I don't know exactly how insurance works but looking at the photo the claim might be small enough that it's not worth it for the other insurance to go after him, I guess it depends on the damage done to that other car and what coverage they have. So it could still end in his favor even though it probably shouldn't.
dps214 said:Maybe this is a weird place to draw the line, but I'm not super offended by his actions in the video. What does it for me is then going online and bragging about winning an shiny happy person contest and also admitting to what could be argued is insurance fraud.
I agree with this 100%
If the OP was on a motorcycle he would have reacted differently. Same if the other guy was driving a tractor trailer.
He just pushed ahead because the other guy had a small Honda. But living in Fl (same with GA), that does not mean he will not have a gun and things could've escalated for no reason.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to bobzilla :
No one is dog piling on him. When people in the insurance business say "be prepared for it to not go your way" and he wants to say they're wrong, people get defensive. If I was him, I'd want this thread and the YouTube video deleted.
Getting defensive over an internet post is pretty petty. Spring can't come fast enough to get people outdoors doing things other than smashing keyboards.
In reply to bobzilla :
I love the dog piling on the OP. What happened to the forum that would be open minded to hearing someone out and considering their opinion and not passing judgement? While I would not have personally done this I also understand when enough is enough. People have limits. Being a douche to others because you know they will back down should never be accepted but yet here we are. It only gets worse from here.
The OP made a poor choice in the video, and made another poor choice in sharing the video and his intent. That's not an opinion, he did those things, which are not immune to judgement. If I posted bragging about street racing in school zones or dumping my used oil down a storm drain, or how good a driver I am when I'm drunk, I'd expect to be judged here.
I found a video of the merge attempt from another angle...
You'll need to log in to post.
